The most encouraging development to arise from the wreck and ruin of the World Trade Center has been the re-emergence of direct and sensible thinking in American society, politics, and foreign policy. For forty years America wandered in the wilderness of a confused and muddled sense of identity, purpose, and relation to its neighbors. This wandering has come to an end with the crystallization of this country's new identity, new purpose, and new pre-eminence in a new millennium.

Naturally, as the wheel of progress turns there will be squeaky axles complaining the whole way. We have heard a great deal from various corners of the political spectrum with regard to loss of certain inalienable "rights" which supposedly constitute the basic founding character of this nation. I find it quite amusing to hear, as I often do these days, that our country was supposedly "founded" on the "principles of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". In point of fact, almost all historians agree that the founding of this country took place many years after the Puritanical rabble of Massachusetts and Virginia managed to beat back a few distracted and disinterested English garrisons. It didn't happen as the result of a Declaration, or a Revolution, or a Constitution. It took place over a span of nearly 30 years, from 1820 to 1850, the fulfillment of what we eventually came to know as Manifest Destiny.

The Western lands of America in those days were a wild abode of darkness and savagery, occupied by a filthy collection of what some nowadays call "indigenous peoples" - a term which has become euphemistic for the ignorant brutes Thomas Hobbes described so artfully in his epic Leviathan. True to form, these savage peoples, left to their own devices, were in a rapid cycle of degeneration and reversion to dust.

Hovering over this frontier, like the angel Columbia, was the might and potential of the great peoples of the United States. A multiplying multitude of millions, this new and unprecedented settlement of exceptional men and women could not be contained, and thus began the great Western expansion which eventually led to the annexation of Texas, the seizure of Oregon from withered England, and the fierce repudiation of our sickly southern neighbors, Santa Ana's Whelps: the Mexicans. In the end, those pioneers had achieved the ideal of which we sing today: "From the redwood forest to the Gulf stream waters / This land was made for you and me."

In this, the Great Expansion, and not in any other event, was the United States founded. Those who claim otherwise must argue with the historical record: by 1840, American waterways were thoroughfares for steamboats; by 1844 the telegraph was ushering in a new era of telecommunications; by 1850, having established itself as a transcontinental power, the United States ceased to regard the United Kingdom as a legitimate threat; by 1865 the savage practice of raising and maintaining domestic Negro slave populations had come to a forceful end; in 1869, Chinese laborers under the direction of the great Southern Pacific and Union Pacific Railroads drove the last spike in the Transcontinental Railroad which unified the American nation. Who can deny that these achievements are the hallmarks of modern American Civilization? This period was the magnum opus of American development, and what we are living today is the direct culmination of those events.

Life, Liberty, and Something-or-other: Blessing or Curse?

So, how can we account for the forging of this puissant new kingdom of Men? The laughable ideals of Jefferson and Madison? I think not. The principles of those irrelevant characters had been almost universally rejected by the time Lincoln seized the reigns of Federal power to subjugate his rebellious and wayward Southern neighbors. There is hardly a man today who will boast of the righteousness of the Southern cause without being laughed into the shadows to sulk in frustrated defeat. It is pointless to argue that Lincoln was "heavy-handed" or "un-Constitutional" when in fact it is nearly universally agreed that Lincoln did what must have been done.

What of the "native peoples", the American Indians pushed out into the southwest by American territorial expansion and driven into reservations? Was Andrew Jackson a scoundrel to have sent them on their fabled "trail of tears"? Utter bullshit. There was no other place for a backward people within the emergent American civilization of (dare I pronounce it?) übermenschen. Doubtless it will seem crude and boorish to some, but it cannot be denied that the American Indians were an insidious and insurgent threat to civilized life. See for yourself by reading accounts of the Wolstenholme Massacre.

It would be similarly pointless to argue that Federal land grants and subsidies to railroad companies were contrary to doctrines of liberty. What of the doctrines of destiny? The doctrines of growth, expansion, and victory? Those who argue against Federal encouragement of the railroad industry have forgotten their place, indeed! Apparently, they would wish we had been overpowered and overshadowed by the English, or the Mexicans, or (Heaven forfend!) the Canadians. In light of historical fact, it is practically treasonous to claim that America could or should have done otherwise than it did; only the enemies of America do as much.

Not Merely Survival, But Greatness

"For the laws of nature (as justice, equity, modesty, mercy, and, in sum, doing to others as we would be done to) of themselves, without the terror of some power, to cause them to be observed, are contrary to our natural passions, that carry us to partiality, pride, revenge and the like." -- Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, 1651

There are many among us who have long sought to persuade us of the bliss inherent to the classic trinity of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". These individualistic notions can offer only the promise of comfort, of complacency, and of eventual reversion to the savage state in which the American Indians found themselves.

For too long the goldbricks have talked us into submissive silence while there were opportunities to be exploited, great gains to be seized, and a moral obligation to supremacy to be obeyed. The worst thing in this world is not want or injustice; no, the worst thing in the world is complacency, the rotting degeneracy of will which allows great men to stand by and do nothing when there is so much to be done. It is the fearful stalling and moping about which characterize weak-minded fools who, either by inferior breeding or from frequent recrimination for the sake of some Puritanical moral code, find themselves incapable of seizing the Manifest Destiny which continues to run its course long after the term has been removed from common parlance.

Not since decades long past have Americans been given such an opportunity to rally, unite, and support the inevitable, irresistible force of their common, future greatness. Those who see in September 11th a great loss and sorrow are missing the entire point of history. Now is the time to surpass mean circumstance and the bitter remonstrance of laughable neighbors. We are the United States of America. Let us not forget our past when we look to the horizon of our future.

Given the variety of screwballs who post on this site, and given the well-known fact that Adequacy.org editors log IP addresses for every message posted here, it would probably be a good idea to turn over copies of these logs to the proper law enforcement authorities on a regular basis, just to be on the safe side.

This is Great!!! (none / 0) (#25)

by Anonymous Reader on Fri Jun 7th, 2002 at 08:08:38 AM PST

this is a wonderful piece of literature. anyone who cant see that is a fool. this person should be praised. all hail whoever wrote this.
finally someone who isnt patriotic fool

What proof do you have of them fading into dust? It was a different way of living my people had it was of course some what natural way of living. Savages? No, they respacted the earth and life to a much higher degree, you call them savages for the only reason since they didn't have much techonology. So what they didn't have guns and castles, what have them items done for human kind any ways? So savages? I think not.

Their respect for "the earth and life" was simply symptomatic of their animistic and primal nature. To respect "life" and "earth" as abstract notions is to confuse dogshit with God. The savage American Indians were degenerate leftovers from the much-greater Incan, Mayan, and Aztec civilizations, which, for all their superiority over the American Indians we know today, were even so a weak and inferior race of people. Honestly, worshipping the Sun? For Christ's sake, man.

"The savage American Indians were degenerate leftovers from the much-greater Incan, Mayan, and Aztec civilizations, which, for all their superiority over the American Indians we know today, were even so a weak and inferior race of people"

You are such a racist; go back to Hell you pathetic excuse of a human being

Certain indigenous American tribes were certainly by the book terrorists. Raiding settlements, stealing women and children, scalping, murdering travellers indiscriminately... The United States soon found themselves with little alternative than to deal with the problem in the old fashioned way: War.

Soon the Palestinians will find themselves in a similar boat.

Not enough room on this planet anymore for terrorist savages.

That being said, there are certain tribes which have always been peaceful and humane and it is indeed a tragic shame what has happened to them (Sioux for example) based on the behavior of their neighbors.

...that this might be the most logically persuasive article posted on this site since the advent of the new year? I do believe that this man is quite right in saying that complacency is the worst thing in the world. Anyone else who thinks otherwise is obviously out of their gourd.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------If ignorance is bliss, then knock the smile off my face.

That "story"... (none / 0) (#8)

by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jun 5th, 2002 at 05:09:32 PM PST

Is the most obnoxious neo-fascist piece of Naziist propaganda I've ever seen on the 'Net.

<cite>by 1850, having established itself as a transcontinental power, the United States ceased to regard the United Kingdom as a legitimate threat.</cite> That is the biggest load of bull I have ever seen. Until the United States started producing aircraft carriers in bulk in the <B>mid 1930s</B> in response to the growing fascist and imperialist threat in Europe and Asia, the UK could have (with major casualties) blockaded all of the U.S. coastline with its Royal Navy, shelled the Great Lakes region from the Canadian shore, and basically held the United States hostage.

<cite>The laughable ideals of Jefferson and Madison?</cite> The "Laughable ideas of Jefferson and Madison" are the principles upon which the USA was founded, you poor poor little victim of public education. This is a poorly concealed attempt to deride the Founders of our great nation. If they had not existed, Mr. Crosby would most likely have already been arrested by a Gestapo-like police force for posting this kind of story, slandering his nation's founders.

As for Indians... I draw the line of political correctness at calling them Native Americans, but they were here first, idiot. I suppose its their fault they came over on the ice bridge 30,000-12,000 years ago, and "soiled" the land of the USA by the time the white settlers came.

Please, open any 9th-grade History (sorry, its "Social Studies" nowadays) Textbook, and PLEASE, PLEASE read it before posting drivel like this again.

An efficient government wouldn't waste the effort to send around Gestapo to harass people for merely writing things. It's a waste of perfectly-good money that could have been used to bolster military power or secure new lands. Not sending around Gestapo also gets you, for free, the support of hordes of flag-waving patriots, while any necessary increases in domestic supervision can be easily justified by some minor terrorist incidents.

It's the efficient use of resources and shrewd domestic/international policy which separates the USA from doomed backwater dictatorships. Not some misguided notions about "freedom" or "democracy."

--
All information wants to be free, especially information about what you do in the privacy of your own home.

Native American Concern for Nature (5.00 / 1) (#27)

by Anonymous Reader on Fri Jun 7th, 2002 at 03:25:39 PM PST

Yes, the woolly mammoth flourished under the tender ministrations of the indigenous peoples, as did many other species now extinct. Clearly, the advent of civilization had such a profound effect on the land that species were drivin into extinction thousands of years retroactively!!
Truly, the European immigration has such powerful effects that they are transmitted backwards in time!!!

First of all, I must say that the overall attitude reflected in this article is quite heartening, and shows the true meaning of the revival of patriotism, traditional values, and nation pride in America since the barbaric terrorist attacks of September 11th. Unfortunately, by denying the importance, or superior of the ideas of limited government and the free market economy, you effectively lower yourself to the level of terrorists. After all, it is true that the Anglo-Saxon race is naturally superior to some others, but one mark of this superiority is support for property rights and the natural regulation offered by free markets over government regulation, which as anyone familiar with economic theory knows, lead to mediocrity, stagnation, and ultimately totalitarian communism.

For instance, you acknowledge that the true greatness of this nation was achieved in the years between 1820 and 1850, and yet you describe the practice of Negro slavery as "savage and barbaric". It is probably easy for you to say, living the comfort middle class life made possible by 150 years of progress, that these people lived as they did simply because the southern slave owners were "bad" people. The truth is, they were no more bad than the glorious entrepreneurs who built the transcontinental railroads using Asiatics who were paid low wages. The truth is, that although in a mature society with a large population, allowing the natural market to set wages and hiring laborers only for the term of service needed results in maximum profits, where labor is scarce and dangerous, forced labor is necessary.

This is the necessity that the "bad" southern slave owners confronted. The southern plantation economy provided the economic stimulus for the settlement of America, and provided the first exports competitive on the world market. And you must remember the moral character of most of the Negro societies in Africa...they were every bit as uncivilized as the Indians, and furthermore by the time of the settlement of America, many were converting to Mohammedism. Most of the powerful African kingdoms already practiced slavery, and the legal status of the slaves was already set when they were purchased for use in North America. So it was not as though the slave lifestyle was forced upon them by the slave owners, it was very much in their nature already. Consider also that one result of slavery was their adoption of civilized customs, so whereas many spoke strange languages and practiced Mohammedism or other forms of pagan devil-worship in the past, most American Negroes are evangelical Protestant Christians.

This does not change the fact that, as the frontier was closed, there was a necessity that slave labor be phased out so that free competition could result in greater levels of growth, but considering the past importance of slavery, and its continued dynamism at the time of the War Between the States, did not justify the permanent abrogation of the freedoms won in the revolution (which continues to this day). The great achievements of Americans since then have been in spite of, not because of, the corrupt policies of the government (which is not to say that carefully crafted government investment, such as the transcontinental railroads or interstate highway system, does not have a place), a testament to the true moral character of the Anglo-Saxon people.

is a complete farse and I suggest you read up a little on the similarities that the Islamic faith and Christianity share.

Most importantly, all three of the monotheistic beliefs that originated in the Middle East, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, believe fervently in the same God, although they do refer to him in different names. In fact, sir, the Muslims also believe that Jesus was God's son and he will return as Christians do; there main difference is they believe that God showed them Muhammed who rewrote the word of God in more concise terms which they follow.

As in other religions, even Christianity, there are different interpretations as to what the word of God is meant to say. So some factions emerge from these differences such as the Jihad groups.

that was an unconscious typo. I meant to write "practiced Mohammedism or forms of pagan devil worship", of course a distinction must be made between animist ancestor worship and what not and Mohammedism. Much of what I have heard of Mohammedans suggests that they do not in fact view Jesus as the son of god, and savior of mankind, but merely as another prophet. Nonetheless, even if Mohammedism is more civilized than paganism, we must acknowledge that true biblically-based christianity is a quantitative improvement in any case.

I was starting to think you were turning into some closeminded idiot like yoshi or the potato guy. And I'm not saying I'm an expert, but the Muslim friend of mine said that at least his beliefs are that Jesus will return (could just be that sect or something). And yes The Bible IS the word of God.

Mohammedanism is devil worship, period. That doesn't mean that Muslims are evil (any more than Christians are good - there are no intrinsics derived from extrinsics in morality.) It does mean that Islam is an evil religion.

I mean come on you sound like a 1500's english man. Can you see the broader picture? Look the African people way of life was different, native americans way of life was different. Want to know savage? How about starving people? How about commiting genocide on a group of peaceful people? Oh how about rampaging straight through a people with no want or intent to cause war? This is what the Europeans did to the America's. So whats savage? Peaceful living or Destroying everything in your path?

How about commiting genocide on a group of peaceful people? Oh how about rampaging straight through a people with no want or intent to cause war? This is what the Europeans did to the America's. So whats savage?

I'm not actually accusing anyone of being savage, nor would "savage-ness" alone have justified anything that happened in the process of the settlement of America. The fact is that the Anglo-Saxon race needed more resources and living space, and there was comparatively underutilized territory in North America which could be appropriated for their use. It is a sad fact that their society was destroyed as a result of this glorious expansion, but as was noted in the parent article, the indian societies were fighting amongst each other and killing each other and starving to death anyhow without any european intervention.

As for Negroes, I believe I made quite clear that there was a clear need for forced labor in the early colonial era in America, and there were many slaves available from Africa. The Africans responsible for selling these slaves certainly did not complain, in fact many of the greatest and most powerful African societies, such as the Asante and Dahomey kingdoms, conquered their enemies based on wealth acquired selling slaves.

Certainly if you really believe all of that postmodern cultural relativism, you must accept my belief in the moral superiority of the Anglo-Saxon race and Christian religion as equal to the practices of whatever primitive society you would prefer to live in that kills their children or practices cannabalism. I don't feel that our cultural superiority is any justification for any practice, rather we must look to the dictates of the market and free competition. That in the process of this process of building a civilization, some people previously practicing uncivilized ways have been introduced to Christianity and American values, I nonetheless view as a new thing, although it would make no difference if they were not offered this opportunity.

America is just lucky that's all (none / 0) (#12)

by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jun 5th, 2002 at 07:58:29 PM PST

the current dominance of the US can be attributed to one thing and one thing only. We had the good fortune to be the only major power to emerge from World War II with our industrial capacity unscathed.

The fact that we got in after the economic powers were already failing in Europe says a lot as to why our rejuvenating presence took us ahead of them.

Also the fact that we are across a few thousand miles of water from our closest threat (at the time of WW2). Except for Mexico whom the Germans tried to entice into helping them but failed, not that they could have reacquired anything other than California (hmmm ... would that have been that bad?).

Would that industrial capacity exist in the first place, without the western states? Would we have had the geographical advantage if we hadn't fulfilled our manifest destiny? It's hard to say. If we had not pushed westward, and we skipped the Mexican-American war, how would that affect the growing schism between North and South? What if the Union army had not rushed to the aid of the Mexican freedom fighters? Would the French have been able to keep Mexico? Would the French still have Mexico as the Nazis marched to Paris?

I know, that is all a stretch. But I agree with many of the points of Mr. Crosby. The American Greatness was forged in the first half of the 1850s. If not for that relentless expansionism, America would not be the superpower it is today._
_
Do you suffer from late-night hacking? Ask your doctor about Protonix.

Ignorant Savages (none / 0) (#28)

by Anonymous Reader on Fri Jun 7th, 2002 at 03:39:00 PM PST

Strange, isn't it, that although most all of the ignorant savages who were captured and raised by the Pennsylvania settlers returned to their ways whenever they could, few if any of the "white" captives elected to return to "civilization."
The natives were displaced because their way of life was better adapted to the environment, provided better, more comfortable living standards, and was more spiritually rewarding than that of the "whites." This threatened a power structure which had at its disposal a large supply of gunpowder and the equipment with which to use it. The beneficiaries of this "progress" were the elite, not the masses.
Modern biological terrorism had its start with tactics used against the native americans by the "civilized" settlers. - so much for "civilization." -

Now that you've presented us with your brilliant and original historical analysis, would you care to give us some reasons for reverting to a combined economy of nomadic hunter-gatherers and subsistence agriculture, subject to a political system of hereditary despotism occasionally rearranged by intermittent small-scale warfare?

the idea that "modern biological terrorism" stemmed from "tactics" used by the European settlers against the Indians. You can almost picture the evil settlers, gleefully rubbing their hands together as they purposely bring over as many smallpox- and measles-infested comrades as possible in order to decimate the Indian population.

That's exactly where al-Qaeda and homegrown militia types got the idea to try to poison our air and drinking water with anthrax.

That if we were to revert to Neolithic technological life, we'd have to shake that 99% of the population that would be beyond the revised carrying capacity of the available agricultural and hunting land.

Actually, the indeginous[1] agricultural peoples of Europe had no problem supporting almost any number of people, even on very scarce and unfertile land.

True, there was a serious problem with disease -- but this is due more to the unhygienic habits of Western Europeans. Eastern Europe, for example (where people were expected to wash themselves at least once a week, not once a year like in place such as France and Germany) had much less serious problems with plagues as compared to Western Europe.

Also, for this reason, Eastern Europe was able to support cities with populations several orders of maginitude larger than those of Western Europe.

[1] By "indigenous" I mean "aryan white Europeans", not "paint yourself blue and howl at the moon". And no, I am not a Nazi thank you very much. I just think that people need to carefully rethink what they mean by "ethnic culture".

Thankfully, we have men like Rumsfeld, Bush and Ashcroft taking up the reigns were Lincoln dropped them.

I tip my hat to Mr. Crosby for his honesty.

The elite leading this nation are men of action, not like the spineless jellyfish who nurtured the asinine ideas of "life, liberty and happiness."

To the strong go the assets, as it should be.

Men with a sense of adventure, white men of superior breeding and vision, are still living the American "Manifest Destiny." We now look with spirited heart at unconquered frontiers east and west, over the great seas.

If God didn't want us to conquer, he wouldn't have equiped us with superior hearts and minds and an unquenchable lust for victory!

Next stop, a victory over the browner earthen-colored folk of the Middle East! Oil to the spoilers!

Onward brave friends!!! Onward!!!

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective
companies.
Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 Adequacy.org.
The Adequacy.org name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most
Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source
Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of Adequacy.org. No part
of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written
permission by Adequacy.org and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by
the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to
legal@adequacy.org.